Glad you reuploaded this one. One key theme that has come through my academic experience with Indigenous Australia is how much damage is done to our understanding and policy-making built on a foundation that assumes a one-size fits all, top-down analysis. This approach always ends in a process wherein regional differences are ignored and grand narratives are constructed. This stuck out for me in Dark Emu in particular, and resultant anthropological and historical analysis which highlighted just how many sources were twisted further confirmed that. Having to stretch beyond that type of thinking invites nuance people seem actively hostile towards. While not a purely historical analysis, Jon Altman's studies of decentralised, local Indigenous economies reinforce this. The more we keep trying to take the multi-faceted history and context of Indigenous populations and boil them down (or demand they fit our value judgement to prove their 'worth'), the more damage we do. Damage is done to our own understanding; and to craft policy that could head in a sustainable, positive direction. A perfect example is the comments of those who cannot conceive of tensions in Wadeye (formerly Port Keats) reflecting (at least some) historical tribal tensions - they just see all Indigenous people as the same colour and subject to the same "brush". A more foundational analysis that considers that the people of Wadeye are not the "same" and have different, unique histories is then cast to the wayside - with negative outcomes that follow.
Absolutely. Bottom-up, multi-faceted. I remember learning about this quite early in high school through the excellent Australian TV series Behind the News, which always presented issues from multiple perspectives. It did a great job of exploring how, for example, Aboriginal people in an area were divided over construction of a bridge, with some saying the area in which the bridge was to be built had cultural significance and some saying it didn't. There were important reasons for the differences, and understanding them provided a much more nuanced perspective on the topic than the average news story.
The really disturbing thing here is, that organisations who should have known better than to accept a persons account of things without research and evidence, still cannot admit they were wrong!
Hi Veritas! First of all, great video, excellent academic rigour as always, but that aside, perhaps when presenting quotations in the future you might make them larger or easier to read? I am watching this video on a large moniter and I personally find it a little hard to read the quotations, at least if I have not paused the video. Increasing the text size of your quotations may improve acessibility for viewers who have poorer eyesight or those who are watching the video through a smaller screen, such as a mobile phone.
Thanks for the comment. This is an issue I have really struggled to get right. I've changed my citation size several times over the years in response to comments and my own experience; I predominantly use RUclips on my phone, and I view my own videos on my phone to check for accessibility issues. Using my glasses, I can read the citation text on this video with my hands holding my phone on my desk, so slightly further away than I would hold a book. But yes I know it's a little hard if the video isn't paused. Having said that, it was one of my early viewers who told me I should be adapting my content to the medium and take into account the fact that viewers can and will pause videos. That's why I've felt the text was sufficiently sized. I'll try a slightly larger size next time, and see how it goes.
@@veritasetcaritas Though it may not be perfect, it is still highly commendable that you would go to the effort of including your sources and quotations within the videos themselves, as opposed to simply including them in a document in the description or not including any at all, as many RUclipsrs/Internet Content Creators do. In my opinion, this displays a passion and concern for sound academic methodology as well as history in general which elevates your content above that of the standard 'pop-history' content creator.
@@AlkalineandAcid thank you so much! There are a few of us smaller history RUclipsrs who really try to put in the effort, because we have become so tired of the low standard set by the larger channels. I commented on that recently here. ruclips.net/user/postUgkxzDjO0eittPNZbx-fNGLuWM0h0IInHNBA
15:06 - Not sure about your description of this principle that it's "always better" to produce resources more efficiently (i.e. "more resources while using less land"). It's _is_ a "principle" taken as true, but it's a principle _of agriculture_ - i.e. it's only "better" if you take that principle as true because you are practicing agriculture. As you mention, this is a "basic principle," so going at odds (not practicing land-efficient resource production) means not practicing agriculture, by definition. You clearly make a strong point, I was just surprised at the lack of specific discussion that "always better" belongs to the context of "IF you're practicing agriculture", therefore the specific evidence he's bringing up (and exaggerating!) suggesting that they _weren't_ practicing agriculture. They were objectively inefficient (certainly compared to today), but your framing gives me a sense of judgment that they were also subjectively incompetent / ineffective users of the land, rather than practicing their own, non-agricultural methods. I don't believe this was intentional on your part, which is why I felt to bring it up. To be clear - the discussion on the evidence and his (seemingly misguided) use of it was satisfying - it's just the terminology of "always better" not being emphatically contextualized that surprises me. Since you did preface it as "the basic principle that..." it is contextualized as _a_ principle - but you don't write that it's a basic principle _of agriculture._ I figure it's not intentional because contextualizing it that way makes your point stronger, but if that is the intended reading, then saying that context explicitly - rather than letting the listener bridge the gap (i.e. by working backwards from your point) - would, IMO, make it a more accessible point. It's obviously possible I'm misreading your point, and my interpretation of this is also only my own, not representing readers in general. Just wanted to share it as a single bit of feedback from one, however much that means! This is an excellent series. I haven't made it to the end but understand there's a video touching on the then-forthcoming book Keen cites, and I'm excited to see that when it's ready. (As well as to pick up that book, perhaps.) Edit: Thinking a bit on this further it seems I'm pulling this argument from a connotation of "principle" meaning "principled", along the lines of good wisdom, knowledge, understanding of basics. This isn't necessarily true, i.e. "principle" can be understood as neutral / culturally contextual, so non-judgmental in a purely academic use. However I feel that a non-judgmental use of "principle" was hampered by you calling out that Pascoe "doesn't seem to understand the basic principle" (seemingly judgmental phrasing, along the liens of "he doesn't know jack on the subject he's spouting off about") and would have been strengthened by contextualizing it as "the basic principle of agriculture". _He_ claims (or provides the appearance of) someone knowledgeable in agriculture, i.e. it _does_ make sense to judge him for using evidence that in fact goes against him... but it is easy to extrapolate that judgment to Aboriginal resource practices in general - largely because describing it as just "the basic principle that..." makes it sound universal, rather than conformant to a specific system (which the Aborigines were not practicing).
Thanks for the very long comment. I think I may have lost track of your argument part way through, but to be clear about what I was saying, it's PASCOE who is claiming the Aboriginal people WERE doing agriculture in this huge area, which means ironically HE is making them look inefficient and incompetent. In contrast, I don't think they were doing agriculture, so I think they were using the land perfectly efficiently given the usage to which they were putting it.
@@veritasetcaritas Absolutely! Yes, it's an irony that's - well, somewhat amusing, but quite frustrating too. It's no complex principle but "look, they're using more! they're DOING MORE AGRICULTURE!" is a simple falsehood to convince the reading audience on - that is, the general populace, but also, frustratingly, students! (I want to specifically mention your section on the media coverage of Dark Emu and its rise to fame, as I think that's an important aspect to consider - particularly when the work which got so popular is rather a bit of a hack job.) My comment was specifically on your choice of terminology, i.e. I found your intention seemingly clear (thanks for that exact confirmation in your reply), but the wording didn't emphasize that intention as directly as it could have. But the example has an inherent irony to it, so I don't think word choice was a major issue - just something that stood out watching that part.
@@veritasetcaritas I would like to add to this point as it's a very linear way of thinking about agriculture. Specifically, it's being compared to industrial modern agriculture which is based on high yields from a small area which needs high chemical inputs; which are fossil fuel based. So, there is land use efficiency and resource efficiency generally. You can minimise the land use, at the expense of fossil fuels, but is that really necessary for supporting the aboriginal population? Maybe, it would be wasteful to produce more of a resource than is needed (grain can go off, needs proper storage). So really it depends on the demands of the population. You need to consider is high yield, small growing space needed, especially when it's so unsustainable. Plus the other key point is you are comparing land use for one crop vs a modern agriculture system. What else was produced in the same area of land that's not being taken into account. Polyculture systems were much more common in traditional agriculture systems (globally) than modern monoculture systems. I feel that whole point was a little shallow only looking into yield as the key metric when the reality would have been more complicated than that.
@@geoffreylangrish5225 I think you're missing the point that the comparison was being made by Pascoe, not me. It was Pascoe who was saying it would be better for MODERN societies if we used far more land to grow crops than we do now. He did not consider factors such as the water required to grow crops on that land, or the fertility of that land, or that land's suitability for various crops and not others, or the fact that modern populations are possible precisely because they are able to produce more resources from a given area of land. Additionally, that can be done sustainably; it doesn't need to exhaust the land or use tons of destructive fossil fuels. But using the amount of land Pascoe recommended would require thousands of kilometers of water, electrical, and fossil fule infrastructure just to be even remotely feasible, damaging thousands of kilometres more land than is currently under threat. I fail to see this as an advantage. I didn't say anything about a high yield/low land use strategy being NECESSARY for the survival of the Aboriginal peole. However, we have clear evidence that Aboriginal Australians themselves favored a high yield/low land use strategy. Firstly they practiced crop intensification, attempting to raise the yield of wild crops in a smaller area. They clearly thought it was preferable to increase the yield of crops in a smaller area, than walk 10 kilmetres a day to try and scavange food from individual plants hundreds of meters apart. Secondly they practiced forms of acquaculture involving physically altering waterways in order to artifically force fish and other water animals into a smaller area, increasing the concentration of prey in a smaller area, where they would be more easily directed into traps such as nets and artificial pools. They clearly thought it was preferable to increase the density of prey in a smaller area of the waterway than spend hours swimming kilometres each day to try and catch fish with their bare hands.
The indigenous version of "Chariots of the Gods." Just goes to show, just because you would like something to be true, does not necessarily make it true.
The point of Dark Emu is that agricultural sedentary means of subsistence are superior to H/G methods. It doesn’t challenge the underlying assumptions of the idea that different cultures are better then each other
@@veritasetcaritas I know as a anarchist I think praising the Australian Aboriginals without a strong hierarchy or practices such as slavery is a good thing
@@cassidyarnold505 we can praise societies which didn't have slavery, though that's a pretty low bar. But Aboriginal Australian societies typically had hierarchies, especially patriarchal hierarchies of elder men called gerontocracies.
@@veritasetcaritasgetting back to you after two months but why Aboriginal societies had hiarchies. This is more about how we judged cultures based on the “advanced” stuff they produced. When how much of a percentage of the culture could enjoy it and how much suffering was made by slaves in the mines dying from tiny rocks in their lung so a rich fuck in the Mail or Roman Empire could enjoy fancy jewelry. It seems like more people where exploited then where gained by the elites that exploited their labor. If a ullterian most amount of happiness is the preferred society. Saying they had fancy roads and monuments rings hollow when people where press ganged into building those monuments causing great suffering in the lower classes. Australian Aboriginal society being small affairs usually didn’t have a king ordering the peasants to build a big fuck off wall
@@cassidyarnold505 I agree Aboriginal societies were typically small, so they didn't have the same kind of hierarchies as larger societies. But they still had hierarchies consisting of people who compelled other people into specific social roles, which were enforced through threats and punishments.
I have a question. Which is better: primary or secondary sources? I ask this because I hear arguments that secondary sources are better, such as because they comment, summarize, interpret or analyze information found in primary sources. Can someone explain to me why secondary sources are disfavored to the primary ones?
it depends on the field, and on your experience with the field. If you're unfamiliar with the field it's a good idea to drill down from tertiary sources to secondary sources, and most of the time you can stop there. Occasionally you might take a pointer from a secondary source and drill down further to a primary source. Primary sources are of greatest value to people with the knowledge and expertise to interpret them correctly. There are very few categories of primary source I feel confident interpreting on the basis of my own knowledge and expertise. Does this help?
@@veritasetcaritasthere are issues with people taking primary sources at face value and not understanding why say a Confederate diarist might want to make the Confederacy look good
@@cassidyarnold505 yes, that's why I mentioned the importance of the knowledge and expertise to interpret them correctly. In Pascoe's case he often did not understand his primary sources.
How can you gloss over the fact that Pascoe claimed to be Aboriginal through his mothers side, upon finding out the relative was born in England then went on to claim he was aboriginal through his fathers side. pretty sure his credibility is 0 at this point.
For the Primary source of the "Yam fields" he described them as being wild, Im not sure if thats a fair characterization. Ive personally been collecting yams since I was a child with older aboriginal women and this doesnt make sense to me, usually yams are hard to find, dont grow together on mass (like native grasses) and rely on other plants for their vines to climb. I wonder why no botanist or someone familiar with the plants hasnt come out in support of Pascoes claim as it is inconsistant with the hundreds of natural growing examples I have seen. Great Video btw, Ive been looking for a breakdown like this that wasnt done by conservative pundits so thank you 😊
An intelligent and well researched summary of this scandal. One flaw in your presentation, however. You frequently refer to a “notorious right-wing commentator” or the “right-wing” journal Quadrant, but, then go on to quote Saturday Paper and the Guardian newspaper with out qualifying them (correctly in my view) as notoriously hard left publications. A bit of balance would be appropriate.
The Guardian and The Saturday Paper are not Leftist!? Either I am reading a different version of these publications to you or your definition of the Australian Centre is vastly at odds with my perception.
You know they had scholars back when the world was flat and you fall. Off the edge of the earth on the horizon .Untill they investigated it. Bruce Pasco is a good man telling what he found in English documented books revealing what they saw at the time farming grane crops to make bread. Organised catchment in river for fish support all the tribes around that regions . Quarries grind stones. So now the Earth is Round . We know because it's been investigated.good job Bruce Pasco 👍🏼🧡
Pascoe is quite a crafty guy, he's read the room correctly and jumped on the Aboriginal gravy train and probably made quite a lot of money. Pity for him he's a fake and been found out.
Glad you reuploaded this one.
One key theme that has come through my academic experience with Indigenous Australia is how much damage is done to our understanding and policy-making built on a foundation that assumes a one-size fits all, top-down analysis. This approach always ends in a process wherein regional differences are ignored and grand narratives are constructed. This stuck out for me in Dark Emu in particular, and resultant anthropological and historical analysis which highlighted just how many sources were twisted further confirmed that. Having to stretch beyond that type of thinking invites nuance people seem actively hostile towards.
While not a purely historical analysis, Jon Altman's studies of decentralised, local Indigenous economies reinforce this. The more we keep trying to take the multi-faceted history and context of Indigenous populations and boil them down (or demand they fit our value judgement to prove their 'worth'), the more damage we do. Damage is done to our own understanding; and to craft policy that could head in a sustainable, positive direction. A perfect example is the comments of those who cannot conceive of tensions in Wadeye (formerly Port Keats) reflecting (at least some) historical tribal tensions - they just see all Indigenous people as the same colour and subject to the same "brush".
A more foundational analysis that considers that the people of Wadeye are not the "same" and have different, unique histories is then cast to the wayside - with negative outcomes that follow.
Absolutely. Bottom-up, multi-faceted. I remember learning about this quite early in high school through the excellent Australian TV series Behind the News, which always presented issues from multiple perspectives. It did a great job of exploring how, for example, Aboriginal people in an area were divided over construction of a bridge, with some saying the area in which the bridge was to be built had cultural significance and some saying it didn't. There were important reasons for the differences, and understanding them provided a much more nuanced perspective on the topic than the average news story.
The really disturbing thing here is, that organisations who should have known better than to accept a persons account of things without research and evidence, still cannot admit they were wrong!
Yes it's trustrating that some people think it's better to ignore the facts.
Hi Veritas! First of all, great video, excellent academic rigour as always, but that aside, perhaps when presenting quotations in the future you might make them larger or easier to read? I am watching this video on a large moniter and I personally find it a little hard to read the quotations, at least if I have not paused the video. Increasing the text size of your quotations may improve acessibility for viewers who have poorer eyesight or those who are watching the video through a smaller screen, such as a mobile phone.
Thanks for the comment. This is an issue I have really struggled to get right. I've changed my citation size several times over the years in response to comments and my own experience; I predominantly use RUclips on my phone, and I view my own videos on my phone to check for accessibility issues.
Using my glasses, I can read the citation text on this video with my hands holding my phone on my desk, so slightly further away than I would hold a book. But yes I know it's a little hard if the video isn't paused.
Having said that, it was one of my early viewers who told me I should be adapting my content to the medium and take into account the fact that viewers can and will pause videos. That's why I've felt the text was sufficiently sized.
I'll try a slightly larger size next time, and see how it goes.
@@veritasetcaritas Though it may not be perfect, it is still highly commendable that you would go to the effort of including your sources and quotations within the videos themselves, as opposed to simply including them in a document in the description or not including any at all, as many RUclipsrs/Internet Content Creators do. In my opinion, this displays a passion and concern for sound academic methodology as well as history in general which elevates your content above that of the standard 'pop-history' content creator.
@@AlkalineandAcid thank you so much! There are a few of us smaller history RUclipsrs who really try to put in the effort, because we have become so tired of the low standard set by the larger channels. I commented on that recently here.
ruclips.net/user/postUgkxzDjO0eittPNZbx-fNGLuWM0h0IInHNBA
In my next video I am increasing my citation typeface size from 20 to 25. I hope it helps.
15:06 - Not sure about your description of this principle that it's "always better" to produce resources more efficiently (i.e. "more resources while using less land"). It's _is_ a "principle" taken as true, but it's a principle _of agriculture_ - i.e. it's only "better" if you take that principle as true because you are practicing agriculture. As you mention, this is a "basic principle," so going at odds (not practicing land-efficient resource production) means not practicing agriculture, by definition. You clearly make a strong point, I was just surprised at the lack of specific discussion that "always better" belongs to the context of "IF you're practicing agriculture", therefore the specific evidence he's bringing up (and exaggerating!) suggesting that they _weren't_ practicing agriculture. They were objectively inefficient (certainly compared to today), but your framing gives me a sense of judgment that they were also subjectively incompetent / ineffective users of the land, rather than practicing their own, non-agricultural methods. I don't believe this was intentional on your part, which is why I felt to bring it up.
To be clear - the discussion on the evidence and his (seemingly misguided) use of it was satisfying - it's just the terminology of "always better" not being emphatically contextualized that surprises me. Since you did preface it as "the basic principle that..." it is contextualized as _a_ principle - but you don't write that it's a basic principle _of agriculture._ I figure it's not intentional because contextualizing it that way makes your point stronger, but if that is the intended reading, then saying that context explicitly - rather than letting the listener bridge the gap (i.e. by working backwards from your point) - would, IMO, make it a more accessible point.
It's obviously possible I'm misreading your point, and my interpretation of this is also only my own, not representing readers in general. Just wanted to share it as a single bit of feedback from one, however much that means! This is an excellent series. I haven't made it to the end but understand there's a video touching on the then-forthcoming book Keen cites, and I'm excited to see that when it's ready. (As well as to pick up that book, perhaps.)
Edit: Thinking a bit on this further it seems I'm pulling this argument from a connotation of "principle" meaning "principled", along the lines of good wisdom, knowledge, understanding of basics. This isn't necessarily true, i.e. "principle" can be understood as neutral / culturally contextual, so non-judgmental in a purely academic use. However I feel that a non-judgmental use of "principle" was hampered by you calling out that Pascoe "doesn't seem to understand the basic principle" (seemingly judgmental phrasing, along the liens of "he doesn't know jack on the subject he's spouting off about") and would have been strengthened by contextualizing it as "the basic principle of agriculture". _He_ claims (or provides the appearance of) someone knowledgeable in agriculture, i.e. it _does_ make sense to judge him for using evidence that in fact goes against him... but it is easy to extrapolate that judgment to Aboriginal resource practices in general - largely because describing it as just "the basic principle that..." makes it sound universal, rather than conformant to a specific system (which the Aborigines were not practicing).
Thanks for the very long comment. I think I may have lost track of your argument part way through, but to be clear about what I was saying, it's PASCOE who is claiming the Aboriginal people WERE doing agriculture in this huge area, which means ironically HE is making them look inefficient and incompetent.
In contrast, I don't think they were doing agriculture, so I think they were using the land perfectly efficiently given the usage to which they were putting it.
@@veritasetcaritas Absolutely! Yes, it's an irony that's - well, somewhat amusing, but quite frustrating too. It's no complex principle but "look, they're using more! they're DOING MORE AGRICULTURE!" is a simple falsehood to convince the reading audience on - that is, the general populace, but also, frustratingly, students! (I want to specifically mention your section on the media coverage of Dark Emu and its rise to fame, as I think that's an important aspect to consider - particularly when the work which got so popular is rather a bit of a hack job.)
My comment was specifically on your choice of terminology, i.e. I found your intention seemingly clear (thanks for that exact confirmation in your reply), but the wording didn't emphasize that intention as directly as it could have. But the example has an inherent irony to it, so I don't think word choice was a major issue - just something that stood out watching that part.
@@quasar.nebula thanks for the comments!
@@veritasetcaritas I would like to add to this point as it's a very linear way of thinking about agriculture. Specifically, it's being compared to industrial modern agriculture which is based on high yields from a small area which needs high chemical inputs; which are fossil fuel based. So, there is land use efficiency and resource efficiency generally. You can minimise the land use, at the expense of fossil fuels, but is that really necessary for supporting the aboriginal population? Maybe, it would be wasteful to produce more of a resource than is needed (grain can go off, needs proper storage). So really it depends on the demands of the population. You need to consider is high yield, small growing space needed, especially when it's so unsustainable.
Plus the other key point is you are comparing land use for one crop vs a modern agriculture system. What else was produced in the same area of land that's not being taken into account. Polyculture systems were much more common in traditional agriculture systems (globally) than modern monoculture systems.
I feel that whole point was a little shallow only looking into yield as the key metric when the reality would have been more complicated than that.
@@geoffreylangrish5225 I think you're missing the point that the comparison was being made by Pascoe, not me. It was Pascoe who was saying it would be better for MODERN societies if we used far more land to grow crops than we do now. He did not consider factors such as the water required to grow crops on that land, or the fertility of that land, or that land's suitability for various crops and not others, or the fact that modern populations are possible precisely because they are able to produce more resources from a given area of land. Additionally, that can be done sustainably; it doesn't need to exhaust the land or use tons of destructive fossil fuels.
But using the amount of land Pascoe recommended would require thousands of kilometers of water, electrical, and fossil fule infrastructure just to be even remotely feasible, damaging thousands of kilometres more land than is currently under threat. I fail to see this as an advantage.
I didn't say anything about a high yield/low land use strategy being NECESSARY for the survival of the Aboriginal peole. However, we have clear evidence that Aboriginal Australians themselves favored a high yield/low land use strategy. Firstly they practiced crop intensification, attempting to raise the yield of wild crops in a smaller area. They clearly thought it was preferable to increase the yield of crops in a smaller area, than walk 10 kilmetres a day to try and scavange food from individual plants hundreds of meters apart.
Secondly they practiced forms of acquaculture involving physically altering waterways in order to artifically force fish and other water animals into a smaller area, increasing the concentration of prey in a smaller area, where they would be more easily directed into traps such as nets and artificial pools. They clearly thought it was preferable to increase the density of prey in a smaller area of the waterway than spend hours swimming kilometres each day to try and catch fish with their bare hands.
The indigenous version of "Chariots of the Gods." Just goes to show, just because you would like something to be true, does not necessarily make it true.
There's certainly a lot of wishful thinking here.
The point of Dark Emu is that agricultural sedentary means of subsistence are superior to H/G methods. It doesn’t challenge the underlying assumptions of the idea that different cultures are better then each other
Yes that's one of its primary flaws.
@@veritasetcaritas I know as a anarchist I think praising the Australian Aboriginals without a strong hierarchy or practices such as slavery is a good thing
@@cassidyarnold505 we can praise societies which didn't have slavery, though that's a pretty low bar. But Aboriginal Australian societies typically had hierarchies, especially patriarchal hierarchies of elder men called gerontocracies.
@@veritasetcaritasgetting back to you after two months but why Aboriginal societies had hiarchies. This is more about how we judged cultures based on the “advanced” stuff they produced. When how much of a percentage of the culture could enjoy it and how much suffering was made by slaves in the mines dying from tiny rocks in their lung so a rich fuck in the Mail or Roman Empire could enjoy fancy jewelry. It seems like more people where exploited then where gained by the elites that exploited their labor. If a ullterian most amount of happiness is the preferred society.
Saying they had fancy roads and monuments rings hollow when people where press ganged into building those monuments causing great suffering in the lower classes.
Australian Aboriginal society being small affairs usually didn’t have a king ordering the peasants to build a big fuck off wall
@@cassidyarnold505 I agree Aboriginal societies were typically small, so they didn't have the same kind of hierarchies as larger societies. But they still had hierarchies consisting of people who compelled other people into specific social roles, which were enforced through threats and punishments.
I have a question. Which is better: primary or secondary sources? I ask this because I hear arguments that secondary sources are better, such as because they comment, summarize, interpret or analyze information found in primary sources. Can someone explain to me why secondary sources are disfavored to the primary ones?
it depends on the field, and on your experience with the field. If you're unfamiliar with the field it's a good idea to drill down from tertiary sources to secondary sources, and most of the time you can stop there. Occasionally you might take a pointer from a secondary source and drill down further to a primary source.
Primary sources are of greatest value to people with the knowledge and expertise to interpret them correctly. There are very few categories of primary source I feel confident interpreting on the basis of my own knowledge and expertise. Does this help?
@@veritasetcaritas Yes. Thank you.
@@flavius2884 you're welcome.
@@veritasetcaritasthere are issues with people taking primary sources at face value and not understanding why say a Confederate diarist might want to make the Confederacy look good
@@cassidyarnold505 yes, that's why I mentioned the importance of the knowledge and expertise to interpret them correctly. In Pascoe's case he often did not understand his primary sources.
Argument from heavy brow ridges.
How can you gloss over the fact that Pascoe claimed to be Aboriginal through his mothers side, upon finding out the relative was born in England then went on to claim he was aboriginal through his fathers side. pretty sure his credibility is 0 at this point.
That will be in a later video in this series.
ooh I didn't know there was another part coming!@@veritasetcaritas
@@steinanderson9849 yep I think there will be one or two more, depending on how much information I can get in each video.
For the Primary source of the "Yam fields" he described them as being wild, Im not sure if thats a fair characterization. Ive personally been collecting yams since I was a child with older aboriginal women and this doesnt make sense to me, usually yams are hard to find, dont grow together on mass (like native grasses) and rely on other plants for their vines to climb. I wonder why no botanist or someone familiar with the plants hasnt come out in support of Pascoes claim as it is inconsistant with the hundreds of natural growing examples I have seen. Great Video btw, Ive been looking for a breakdown like this that wasnt done by conservative pundits so thank you 😊
Thank you for your support!
An intelligent and well researched summary of this scandal. One flaw in your presentation, however. You frequently refer to a “notorious right-wing commentator” or the “right-wing” journal Quadrant, but, then go on to quote Saturday Paper and the Guardian newspaper with out qualifying them (correctly in my view) as notoriously hard left publications. A bit of balance would be appropriate.
Thank you. I don't regard either the Saturday Paper or Guardian as remotely leftist. I see them as centrist, or liberal at most.
@@veritasetcaritasyour judgement may be suspect based on this statement mate.
The Guardian and The Saturday Paper are not Leftist!?
Either I am reading a different version of these publications to you or your definition of the Australian Centre is vastly at odds with my perception.
@@jamesmuntz386 no they aren't leftist, they're just liberal. You don't see the Guardian arguing for the abolition of capitalism.
You know they had scholars back when the world was flat and you fall. Off the edge of the earth on the horizon .Untill they investigated it. Bruce Pasco is a good man telling what he found in English documented books revealing what they saw at the time farming grane crops to make bread. Organised catchment in river for fish support all the tribes around that regions . Quarries grind stones. So now the Earth is Round . We know because it's been investigated.good job Bruce Pasco 👍🏼🧡
Bullshit.
everyone knows he isn't indigenous right?
Yeah that's another story.
A ton of grain 😀😁😅 That's what would have been gathered over 60,000 years.
Pascoe is quite a crafty guy, he's read the room correctly and jumped on the Aboriginal gravy train and probably made quite a lot of money. Pity for him he's a fake and been found out.
I'm on the fence about the extent to which he's grifting, but his response to serious academic criticism does not give me confidence.
@@veritasetcaritas The thing is he also states he's Aboriginal which is not true. It's a bit of a rort.
@@serverlan763 yes that does make me seriously question his honesty.
@@serverlan763 Yet a major University has fallen for that rort! Right?
B Pascoe has monetised his fiction and folklore.
A scurrilous grifter.
Disgraceful Bruce